310-396-7714|info@HelmerFriedman.com
FacebookYouTubeMastodonLinkedInInstagramRedditTumblrTribelSubstack Notes

Discrimination is the unfair treatment of a person or group based on their race, gender, sexuality, etc., or the ability to see the difference between things or people.

Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross

19-Year Veteran Employee of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health Alleges that Healthcare Companies Fired Him During His Painful Recovery from Life-Threatening Heart Bypass Surgery

June 27, 2024 (BEVERLY HILLS, California) – Mr. Luis Ortiz, a long-term employee in the underwriting department of Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his medical condition and disability when the company fired him during his difficult recovery from open-heart surgery. Elevance Health, Inc., Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, the Elevance Health Companies of California, and several other related entities are named as defendants. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 24STCV15952). The Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP announced the filing today.

Plaintiff Luis Ortiz, a California resident, alleges that on February 17, 2022, after having undergone a coronary angiogram, he was immediately admitted to the hospital and underwent triple bypass surgery. His post-surgery recovery, he alleges, was difficult and rife with complications, including debilitating pain in his chest and back and radiating throughout his entire body.

It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.

Mr. Ortiz alleges that he dutifully kept his employers updated and consistently submitted medical authorization to support his leave of absence. In August 2022, his doctors authorized an extension of his leave for six months. But, in an email of October 7, 2022, he was told by his supervisor, Ms. Millet-Riley, that his leave was unapproved. According to the complaint, she threatened that he would be terminated for “abandoning his job” if he did not contact her within three business days. Mr. Ortiz alleges that he contacted her immediately on the same day and told her that he was not abandoning his job and intended to return to work as soon as his doctors authorized him to do so. Nonetheless, on October 10, 2022, the complaint asserts that the defendants fired Mr. Ortiz for “job abandonment,” an explanation that Mr. Ortiz contends is a pretext for discrimination and unlawful conduct.

Mr. Ortiz further alleges that, after being fired, he applied for a vacant position in underwriting with Anthem Blue Cross of California (for which he was eminently qualified) but was denied that position. Mr. Ortiz alleges that such conduct was discriminatory and retaliatory. Commenting on California law, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP said, “It is illegal to discriminate against employees who are recovering from surgery, and it is disappointing to see these allegations arise in the healthcare industry – the very industry that people rely on for their health and well-being.”

For more information, contact Gregory D Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, (310) 396-7714 x102, ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2024-10-24T11:13:57-08:00June 27th, 2024|Case Update, disability discrimination, Front Page News, Greg Helmer, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Disability Discrimination, Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Anthem Blue Cross
Read More

Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination

Lawsuit Accuses California State University, President Tomás Morales, and Dean Jake Zhu of Equal Pay Act Violations, Gender Discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Other Illegal Behavior

Courtney Abrams, PC & Helmer Friedman LLP Represent Current California State University Employees Accusing CSU Of Illegal Employment Practices

March 14, 2023 (Los Angeles, California) – On this 2023 Equal Pay Day, Courtney Abrams of Courtney Abrams, PC & Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP announced today the filing of a lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the California State University (“CSU”), the President of CSU’s San Bernardino campus, Tomás Morales, and the Dean of the Palm Desert Campus of CSU, San Bernardino, Jake Zhu.

The lawsuit, Clare Weber & Anissa Rogers v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (the State of California acting in its higher education capacity); Tomás Morales, an individual; and Jake Zhu, an individual (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCV05549), alleges that CSU has a well-known pattern and practice of violating California’s Equal Pay Act and otherwise engaging in gender discrimination against and harassing its female employees.

The lawsuit further alleges that CSU resorts to an entrenched practice of silencing its victims if they complain, including forcing them to resign by threatening their careers with ruin (like Plaintiff Anissa Rogers), or, if they refuse, simply firing them (like Plaintiff Clare Weber).

Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality […] When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work […] it not only affects her weekly paycheck but also her long-term economic security.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber, who was the then-Vice Provost at CSU’s San Bernardino campus, complained to Defendant CSU and President Tomás Morales that female Vice Provosts, including herself, were being paid less than their male counterparts. The lawsuit alleges that Dr. Weber specifically protested gender discrimination, including complaining that (1) she had learned that she was not making the same amount of money as her male counterparts in the CSU system and (2) she was one of the lowest-paid despite her large portfolio of assignments. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Weber requested a raise to address the disparity in pay between her and her male colleagues. Indeed, as the EEOC recognized today, allegations like Dr. Weber’s are all too common:

“Unfortunately, women’s individual stories have often included the reality that their contributions have been undervalued, underpaid, and overlooked. Pay discrimination is a stark example of that reality . . . When a woman is paid less than a man for doing the same work . . . it not only affects her weekly paycheck, but also her long-term economic security.”

See “A Message from EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows for 2023 Equal Pay Day and Women’s History Month,”.

The lawsuit likewise alleges that Dr. Rogers, who was the then-Associate Dean at the Palm Desert Campus at CSU, San Bernardino, complained to Dean Jake Zhu that male employees were permitted to harass female employees and that Defendant CSU “needed to do better to disrupt sexism.” According to the lawsuit, Defendant Zhu, who had subjected Dr. Rogers and other female employees to a barrage of sex harassment, instructed Dr. Rogers to just “train the men.”

male employees were permitted to harass female employees, and Defendant CSU ‘needed to do better to disrupt sexism.’

The lawsuit alleges that, thereafter, in identical conversations with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers, current Provost of CSU, San Bernardino, Rafik Mohamed, directed both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers to lie to their colleagues and students and say they were “resigning.” According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mohamed was abundantly clear with both Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers: If you do not resign, you will be fired.

The lawsuit also alleges that multiple current and former employees have corroborated the conduct alleged to be illegal, including one current executive as attesting:

“President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him, there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.”(Emphasis added)

According to the lawsuit, CSU Chancellor Jolene Koester has been known to have “coached” female employees about how best to endure well-documented sex harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by high-ranking male employees (while doing nothing to stop it).

President Morales is so deeply hostile to and regularly discriminates against female employees who work for him that there is a culture of fear at California State University. And unfortunately, President Morales has a well-known practice of forcing female employees to “resign” or “retire” if they disagree with him or complain. He quickly turns on female employees who report workplace concerns to him and engages in what I can only call a “campaign” to discredit them and remove the female employees.

The lawsuit alleges that after Dr. Weber was fired, Defendant CSU offered multiple conflicting explanations for her firing – none of which were true.

The lawsuit filed by Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers follows on the heels of a May 2022 study released by the California State University Employees Union finding that the current pay structure within CSU has resulted in white women being paid roughly five percent less than white men, men of color making about three percent less, and women of color having a nearly seven percent disparity in pay when compared to white men. See CSUEU Salary Study.

Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers are represented by Courtney Abrams, PC, and Helmer Friedman, LLP, California law firms that represent employees and other individuals seeking to vindicate their rights.

Speaking about the lawsuit, Courtney Abrams stated, “California law is clear: it is illegal for employers to subject female employees to inferior and hostile working conditions and pay them less than their male counterparts.”

Andrew H. Friedman likewise stated: “California law is abundantly clear that an employer – not even the State of California – may retaliate against an employee because she complains about gender discrimination and harassment.”

Current and former employees of California State University who wish to report their work experiences or learn more about the lawsuit should complete a case evaluation form and/or visit https://courtneyabramslaw.com/csu-sued-for-gender-discrimination-and-sex-harassment.

For more information about this lawsuit, please contact Courtney Abrams (at 310-490-1547 or courtney@courtneyabramslaw.com) or Andrew H. Friedman (at 310-396-7714 x. 106 or afriedman@helmerfriedman.com).

Similarly, if you are a witness or have information that would be relevant to the claims of Dr. Weber or Dr. Rogers, please contact Mr. Friedman and/or Ms. Abrams.

DOCUMENTS:

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2023-06-21T09:30:56-08:00March 14th, 2023|Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, retaliation, sexual harassment|Comments Off on Cal State University Sued for Gender Discrimination
Read More

Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law

Andrew H. Friedman Speaks on Workplace Perspective About Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law

 
Civility Gender Bias in Practice of Law.
Andrew H. Friedman was recently interviewed on Workplace Perspective by Teresa McQueen of Saffire Legal about civility and gender bias in the practice of law. You can hear the interview by clicking on https://saffirelegal.com/podcast/episode-46-civility-and-gender-bias-in-the-practice-of-law-andrew-friedman/ or https://media.blubrry.com/workplace_perspective/content.blubrry.com/workplace_perspective/Workplace-092320-Friedman-Introverts-CORRECT.mp3

2021-01-04T07:51:23-08:00January 4th, 2021|Andrew Friedman, gender discrimination, speaking engagements|Comments Off on Civility and Gender Bias in the Practice of Law
Read More

Wells Fargo Bank Sued for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation, Refusal to Pay Commissions

Home Mortgage Consultant Sues Wells Fargo for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation and Refusal to Pay Commissions

LOS ANGELES, August 12, 2020 – A former Home Mortgage Consultant has filed a lawsuit alleging sex/gender discrimination, Equal Pay Act violations, and unlawful retaliation against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and related entities and has asserted that the company has refused to pay her the commission wages she has earned. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 20STCV30296). The filing was announced today by the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Plaintiff Raena Krestovnikov alleges that she was not being provided the same level of benefits and compensation that was being given to her male colleagues. She further alleges that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about the disparity and discrimination to her supervisors, including Senior Vice President of Sales Marty Widergren, and for notifying them that she was going to retain counsel.

It is illegal to discriminate against an employee based on her gender, and it’s certainly illegal to fire an employee for raising those concerns to her employer

The lawsuit further alleges that, in retaliation for Ms. Krestovnikov’s complaints of sexist discrimination, Wells Fargo reacted swiftly and punitively. According to the suit, Mr. Widergren, angered by her complaints, harbored a retaliatory animus and refused to meet with her to discuss work matters. Within a few months of her most recent complaints, she was fired.

After she was fired, the suit alleges, Wells Fargo refused to pay Ms. Krestovnikov commissions she had earned and, instead, assigned those accounts to male employees, who unfairly profited from Ms. Krestovnikov’s work.

“It is illegal to discriminate against an employee based on her gender, and it’s certainly illegal to fire an employee for raising those concerns to her employer,” said Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP. Helmer added, “Retaining counsel is a fundamental right in California and the United States, and the law in California prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee for asserting that important right.”

DOCUMENTS:

 

MEDIA COVERAGE:

2021-12-09T11:06:01-08:00August 12th, 2020|discrimination, Front Page News, gender discrimination, retaliation|Comments Off on Wells Fargo Bank Sued for Gender Discrimination, Retaliation, Refusal to Pay Commissions
Read More

Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion

This morning, Helmer Friedman LLP defeated a landlord’s motion to dismiss a familial status discrimination lawsuit (Pitts v. Financial Management Co. – Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.: BC644978).  In the underlying lawsuit, a Los Angeles area couple, Karen Pitts and Michael Pitts sued their landlord (defendants Actress Frieda Rentie and Financial Management Company), alleging after Ms. Rentie learned that Karen Pitts was pregnant and she and her husband Michael were expecting their second child, Ms. Rentie gave them a “60 day notice to quit”, which terminated their lease. In response, the defendants filed a motion – called an anti-SLAPP motion – pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 to dismiss the Pitts’ lawsuit, contending that it was frivolous litigation and that it arose from the defendant’s “60 day notice to quit” which was an exercise of their right to petition the government. The Pitts, represented by Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP, argued that the Pitts’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit arose from the landlord’s allegedly discriminatory eviction and not any protected activity. At the hearing on the defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion, the Honorable Judge Ernest M. Hiroshige (Department 54 of the Los Angeles Superior Court) denied the motion filed in response to the plaintiffs’ FEHA discrimination lawsuit. In his decision, Judge Hiroshige agreed with the arguments made by Mr. Friedman: “Defendant Frieda Rentie, individually and dba Financial Management Company, moves to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425. 16). Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ action arises out of service of the 60-day notice to quit- a necessary prerequisite to filing an unlawful detainer actions- and thus falls under the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute. The Court disagrees . . .  Plaintiffs’ are not challenging the eviction procedure but the eviction decision itself. Thus, while service of the 60-day notice is arguably a protected activity, Plaintiffs’ complaint does not arise from this activity and thus is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.”    You can read Defendants’ motion here, the Pitts’ opposition here, and the Court’s decision here.

2024-05-31T07:17:49-08:00May 16th, 2017|Case Update, discrimination|Comments Off on Helmer Friedman LLP defeats Landlord’s Anti-SLAPP Motion
Read More

Courtney Abrams – Lawsuit Against Trader Joe’s for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

KFI Radio interview about Helmer Friedman’s lawsuit against Trader Joe’s for sexual orientation discrimination.

2019-11-26T08:53:15-08:00September 21st, 2016|employment law, sexual orientation discrimination|Comments Off on Courtney Abrams – Lawsuit Against Trader Joe’s for Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Read More

Beloved Former Store Captain Sues Trader Joe’s Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Lawsuit Alleges Trader Joe’s Fired Beloved Store Manager Because She Is Gay

A former Store Manager (or, Store “Captain” in Trader Joe’s parlance) has filed a sexual orientation discrimination lawsuit against the Company.  In her lawsuit, Sandy Holm, a long term 15-year employee, alleges that her former supervisor, Regional Vice-President Caroline Judd, fired her because she is gay.  The lawsuit was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and assigned case number BC 634605.

“I’m absolutely heart-broken,” responded Ms. Holm when asked to describe how she felt. “Trader Joe’s was my life. I loved that company and I did anything and everything that was ever asked of me.”

Among other things, the lawsuit alleges that Regional Vice-President Judd asked Ms. Holm inappropriate personal questions about Ms. Holm’s sexual orientation including whether Ms. Holm had a “partner,” asking the age of Ms. Holm’s partner, how long Ms. Holm and her partner had been together, and whether they were planning on having children.  According to the lawsuit, these questions and the tone and manner in which they were asked caused Ms. Holm to believe that Ms. Judd had a problem with gay people, in general, and with Ms. Holm for being gay, in particular.  Ms. Holm claims that shortly after asking these questions, Ms. Judd fired her because she is gay and because she made charitable donations to several LGBT organizations including Jewish Queers, Los Angeles LGBT Center, and Pacific Area Boosters Association.

According to Ms. Holm’s lawsuit, Trader Joe’s gives Store Captains wide discretion to make charitable contributions to community groups. According to the lawsuit, Ms. Judd accused Ms. Holm of favoring LGBT charitable organizations because she is gay and that Ms. Judd then derisively commented to Ms. Holm, “I like kitty cats but that doesn’t mean that I can make donations to kitty cat organizations.”  Then, according to the lawsuit, without any prior warnings, Ms. Judd fired Ms. Holm.  Ms. Judd, the lawsuit alleges, attempted to justify Ms. Holm’s firing by falsely claiming that Trader Joe’s had a written policy forbidding Store Captains from making charitable donations in excess of $250.00 without permission from their supervisors.

Ironically, one of the organizations that Ms. Judd allegedly believed to be a gay organization was actually a law enforcement organization — Pacific Area Boosters Association.

Ms. Holm’s attorney, Courtney Abrams, of Helmer Friedman LLP, asked that witnesses and/or persons with knowledge regarding whether Trader Joe’s had and enforced charitable donation policies contact her, “If you have worked for Trader Joe’s and know whether or not the Company had any type of charitable donation policy requiring Store Captains to obtain permission from their supervisors before making donations in excess of $250.00, we’d like to speak with you.”

Commenting about the lawsuit, Andrew H. Friedman, a founding member of Helmer Friedman LLP, stated, “Sexual orientation discrimination is real. It happens every day. We are very fortunate that California outlaws sexual orientation discrimination in employment and housing. ”

In addition to employment law, Helmer Friedman LLP also provides legal representation and advice in a wide range of other areas, including consumer rights, sports, and entertainment.   Andrew H. Friedman (afriedman@helmerfriedman.com) and Courtney Abrams (cabrams@helmerfriedman.com) can be reached at 310-396-7714.

 

2019-12-02T15:38:36-08:00September 20th, 2016|sexual orientation discrimination|Comments Off on Beloved Former Store Captain Sues Trader Joe’s Alleging Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Read More

CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees

June 24, 2015 –The former Chief Financial Officer of SolarMax Technology, Inc. – a renewable energy conglomerate located in Riverside, CA – has filed a lawsuit against the company and several of its directors and executive management team, including CEO David Hsu, Executive Vice President Ching Liu, and CFO Simon Yuan. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC585952). Among other things, plaintiff Michael McCaffrey alleges that he was fired for exposing fraud and financial improprieties in connection with approximately $60 million in capital SolarMax has raised from foreign nationals through the federal EB-5 Immigration and Visa Program (colloquially known as the “Visa for Sale” program). The EB-5 program provides wealthy foreign nationals (and their immediate families) with a two-year fast track to permanent U.S. residency in return for investing $1,000,000 or, in some cases, $500,000 in domestic businesses. The filing was announced today by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman LLP.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. McCaffrey discovered that SolarMax, by engaging in a series of Enron-like “round trip” transactions with sham middleman entities, reported approximately $50,000,000 in phantom revenue on its 2011 and 2012 audited financial statements. In an effort to create a false impression of stronger financial performance and, thus, to attract investment capital, the suit alleges that SolarMax disseminated these artificially inflated figures to EB-5 investors (mostly in Taiwan and China) and others. Mr. McCaffrey also alleges that the inflated revenue figures were presented to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) – part of U.S. Homeland Security – which regulates the EB-5 program.

“Most people do not realize that there is a program by which foreign citizens can literally purchase Green Cards if they have enough money and invest it in a qualifying business,” said Mr. Helmer. The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The program is notorious for potential abuse and exploitation. The USCIS and the SEC have cautioned potential investors “about fraudulent investment scams that exploit the Immigrant Investor Program, also known as EB-5.”

The lawsuit further alleges that Mr. McCaffrey exposed a series of other unlawful activities at SolarMax, including efforts to defraud the Social Security Administration by placing non-employee friends and relatives on the company’s payroll for the sole purpose of permitting them to earn Social Security credits. He further alleges that there existed a pattern of favoritism for the many employees of Chinese descent, and that he – and other employees who were not of Chinese descent – were subjected to unfair treatment and discrimination.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Mr. Helmer said, “Mr. McCaffrey, in his role as the CFO, was simply trying to ensure that SolarMax complied with the same set of rules and operated on the same playing field as all other law-abiding companies. Instead, he was fired after discovering a pattern of improprieties and trying to protect himself – and the company – by insisting that they be discontinued.”

For more information, please contact Gregory D. Helmer or Courtney Abrams at (310) 396-7714.

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Complaint

McCaffrey v. SolarMax Technology, Inc. Press Release

2018-04-12T13:45:54-08:00June 24th, 2015|fraud, Front Page News, national origin discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on CFO Sues Solar Company, Alleges Financial Improprieties, Fraud, Misuse of EB-5 Foreign Investment Funds, Discrimination Against Non-Chinese Employees
Read More

Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful

Helmer Friedman LLP, announced today that the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, has held that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable and unenforceable. In this lawsuit, Los Angeles-based Helmer  Friedman LLP and Washington, D.C-based co-counsel Bernabei & Wachtel, PLLC, represent Cecelia Carter with respect to her claims of wrongful termination, race discrimination and retaliation. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. 30-2013-00647896-CU-WT-CJC (Orange County Sup. Ct., filed May 3, 2013). According to the Complaint, Ms. Carter reported her concern that several Fannie Mae REO Foreclosure Specialists in the Irvine, California office had allegedly solicited illegal kickbacks from brokers in exchange for assigning Fannie Mae REO listings to those brokers. Shortly after, Fannie Mae initiated an investigation into Ms. Carter’s performance and then, on May 4, 2011, terminated her without explanation. On March 26, 2013, a federal grand jury charged Armando Granillo, one of the REO Foreclosure Specialists from the Irvine office, with three counts of “honest services” wire fraud for allegedly soliciting kickbacks from a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona, in exchange for providing him with foreclosed properties to sell on behalf of Fannie Mae. On August 4, 2014, Mr. Granillo was sentenced to 15 months in federal prison for his role in the kickback scheme. For more information about Mr. Granillo’s conviction, see http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-fannie-kickbacks-sentencing-20140804-story.html

After Ms. Carter filed her Complaint, Fannie Mae moved to compel arbitration. The Superior Court denied Fannie Mae’s motion, holding that defendant failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that Ms. Carter and Fannie Mae entered into an arbitration agreement. The Superior Court found that, although the Offer Letter referenced the arbitration policy, Fannie Mae did not include the arbitration agreement with its Offer Letter and did not tell her where to find it; Fannie Mae then revoked the Offer letter; and Fannie Mae’s subsequent offer of employment did not contain or reference an arbitration provision. Fannie Mae appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision on other grounds, holding that Fannie Mae’s arbitration agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was inherently one-sided in that it exempted the types of claims likely to be filed by Fannie Mae, but included the types of claims likely to be filed by the employee. See Carter v. Fannie Mae, No. G049112, 2014 WL 4212622 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Aug. 26, 2014). The arbitration agreement covered “all” claims an employee might make involving a legally protected right relating directly or indirectly to the employee’s employment, but exempted “any claim made in connection with workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation benefits, or under any of Fannie Mae’s employee welfare benefits, ERISA, or pension plans, or to any claim of unfair competition, disclosure of trade secrets, or breach of trust or fiduciary duty.” During oral argument, Fannie Mae’s counsel emphasized the aspects of the agreement it claimed were beneficial to the employee. However, the Court of Appeal held that “

[i]t makes no difference that, arguably, the dispute resolution policy isn’t entirely one-sided” and found that the allegedly positive aspects of the agreement do not “save the agreement as a whole when it contains other provisions that have been clearly held to be unconscionable in the case law.”

“We are very pleased that the Court of Appeal rejected Fannie Mae’s attempt to force Ms. Carter into arbitration,” commented Ms. Loveless. “For years, employers have attempted to destroy one of our Country’s greatest institution – the jury trial – by forcing employees and consumers into secret tribunals that favor large corporations over individuals. The founders of our Country enshrined the right to a jury trial in our Constitution and corporations should not be allowed to take that right away.” The Court of Appeal’s decision may also significantly affect the ability of other Fannie Mae employees to bring their claims in court, rather than be forced into arbitration.

For a PDF copy of the Court of Appeal decision, click here.

For additional information or to report unlawful conduct on the part of Fannie Mae, contact:

Andrew H. Friedman

2022-06-08T10:23:02-08:00September 3rd, 2014|Andrew Friedman, Case Update, discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Court of Appeal Rules That Fannie Mae’s Arbitration Agreement Is Unlawful
Read More

Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA

2018-04-12T13:45:59-08:00July 23rd, 2013|discrimination, Front Page News, race discrimination, wrongful termination|Comments Off on Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel – Helmer Friedman LLP’s Discrimination Lawsuit Chivas USA
Read More
Toggle Sliding Bar Area
Go to Top